If a thief was of royal origin, he was fined but never maimed like a commoner. The chief himself had no laws to submit to, but this freedom was largely counterbalanced by the knowledge that if his actions became too arbitrary or irregular, his life would promptly pay for them. There is a curious custom which still holds good to-day, and which, though really belonging to the chapter describing customs, is introduced here as bearing on the laws pertaining to theft. This custom is “Kufunda” (Sikololo) or “Kushwanga” (Silui). This was the right of a man to his relatives’ possessions. A man could take cattle, or goods of a relative, and the aggrieved party could not bring an action for theft against him. Should any one overdo the “Kufunda,” the aggrieved party could warn his relative that he was tired of losing all his possessions and that the “Kufunda” must cease. After a public warning, any further case would be treated as a mild theft and a fine imposed on the guilty party, but this warning was seldom used, as a great deal of genuine generosity, or, it might be said, a genuine community of property existed amongst relatives. Nearly all other matters in the Barozi country are governed by custom. First, as a great deal of English law is based on some old custom, so do Barozi customs regulate decisions in any matters brought under the jurisdiction of the various Kotlas. THE LAW OF SUCCESSION. This law is particularly selected to be described here as a peculiar and solitary example of how the old Barozi law differs entirely from the similar laws of all the tribes now absorbed under the sovereignty of the Barozi. According to Barozi law, the heir is, if possible, a son; but failing a son, a brother. A father may nominate a favourite son as heir and he need not be the eldest son, but should he die intestate, the Kotla will generally choose the elder son as heir unless he is an outlaw or desperado, when a younger and better behaved man is elected. On the other hand the laws of all other tribes hold as the heir the sister’s son. This, as is quite easy to understand, was caused by the looseness of morals of these smaller tribes, which meant that no man could be sure that the child born by his wife was begotten by him himself. It was argued that whoever was the father to the son of any man’s sister, the son must at any rate have a certain amount of his mother’s and hence of his maternal uncle’s blood, and was therefore the most suitable person to appoint as heir. Comparing this with the Barozi law on the subject, it will be seen that although under Barozi law the nephew might be an heir if there were no sons of the deceased alive, yet the law or custom regulating succession in the other subordinate tribes, made the nephew heir in preference to all other possible heirs.